Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what state information is returned (MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog tools), which is not apparent from annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and key object. Every element contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of the tool name or title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is complete for the tool's simplicity and provides sufficient context for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline of 4 is appropriate since nothing is missing; the description need not compensate for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking toolkit status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling tools like connect or marketplace clearly serve different purposes, but no direct comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) have overlapping responsibilities around auth, connection status, and available tools, making it unclear which to use for a given task. The single TSE tool is distinct, but the surrounding tool boundaries are fuzzy.
Names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one snake_case domain tool (titulo_votacao_consultar) with no shared pattern. A consistent verb_noun or verb_object format is missing.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the scope is muddled: six are generic MCP platform utilities, while only one addresses the server's stated TSE purpose. Most tools are unrelated to voting-title queries, so they do not earn their place in a TSE-focused server.
The TSE domain is served by a single query tool with no supporting operations (e.g., no history, no batch lookups, no formatting helpers), and the platform tools create a confusing meta-layer. The actual consultation surface is minimal, and the set feels incomplete for a dedicated TSE service.